So, Bush and Cheney will meet the commission behind closed doors with no camera, no audio recording and no transcript, no oath taking and a veil of secrecy over the whole process. A not entirely rhetorical question is “What’s the point of them testifying at all under those circumstances?”

With all this and the deal the commission made that it will not call any other White House officials for public testimony before it concludes its investigation, questions for debate are:

Will the American public ever know what the Bush administration did or didn’t know or did or didn’t do?

Do you feel the American public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney’s testimony?

Depends on what your objective is. If the goal is (as it should be) to determine objectively what happened, what the causes were, and what can be done to avoid those situations in the future, then having an open and honest session is the best path forward. This can best be done in a private session, where the answering parties don't have to be as concerned with the politics of their answers or the questions. If you watched Bush's last press conference, you have to admit this a a very valid concern.

Now, if the objective is (as appeared the case with Condoleeza Rice) to parade someone up there to berate them and score political points, well, then the private session becomes problematic.

Curious--where's the outcry over Clinton's testimony, also done in private?

Hobbes - Clinton and Gore's testimonies were recorded.

Will the American public ever know what the Bush administration did or didn’t know or did or didn’t do?
Given that this administration is frequently characterized as "the most secretive ever", I seriously doubt it. I think some of that picture has been painted between the Clarke & O'Neill books but as has been stated frequently on other threads, those accounts are incomplete. I think the hearings have made some progress towards that but ultimately the answer to this question is no.

Do you feel the American public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney’s testimony?
While the president is sitting? No. Much of that intel can be deemed sensitive and I think the commission is a sufficient representative of the American public to act as our medium for interrogating the executive branch without jeopardizing their constitutional ability to conduct foreign and domestic policy. I'm not crazy about it but I'm respectful of the separation of power constructs to accept the process as it stands.

Doc

While I can see the merits of having a closed doors session, I find the quoted comment contradictory.

I would think honesty would be more likely in a public statement where facts would be checked.

In this scenario the commission is begging for whatever scraps the administration wishes to dole out, and they will probably take credit for being candid and open.

I do see how commission members could use the opportunity of a public session to try to embarrass or attack Bush/Cheney

but I do not see how a private testimony that is not under oath can be accurately described as an honest and open session.

I would surmise that the Bush administration doesn't want the whole thing to become an ideological slug-fest. I don't think they want their man George taking a beating from Bob Kerrey. I'm not so certain that this alone is a credible enough reason to justify it, since safeguards and questions can be assured ahead of time. Would a transcript be that bad?? You make an excellent point on this. Yes, the American public should know what the president and the vice president knew and when they knew it. Are we for open government or not?

I find this whole idea of meeting with the commission behind closed doors, with no transcripts/recordings of the events, and having neither Bush nor Cheney under oath very odd. Although I do like the idea of them answering questions I don't see the point if none of it can be made public. Isn't one of the ideas of the 9/11 commission to find out why 9/11 happened and report it to the public? I believe this session should be made public after the Bush/Cheney Admin. is out of office, be it this November or in 2008.

Will the American public ever know what the Bush administration did or didn't know or did or didn't do?
I think that in time the truth will come out. It may take years for all the information to surface but in the end I think the public will know the events leading up to and after 9/11.

Do you feel the American public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney's testimony?
Absolutely. I am not sure whether the testimony would fall into the area of endangering the nation, but I don't think it would. I agree with Doclotus that the results should be known when Bush is out of office, but seeing as how they wont be under oath then all the results will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Eeyore, I understand the sentiment, but I think you fail to understand the spin the politics forces one to put on any public statement. Also, and perhaps most importantly, the administration (any administration) will be more forthcoming in this scenario, not having to worry about the spin. Remember the Iran Contra hearings? How many times did you hear "I fail to recall....". If these hearings had been in private, I think many of these questions would, in fact, have been answered. Also, if you saw Bush's last press conference, it was obvious the questions were intended solely to embarass him, with no other objective, thereby demonstrating the flaws in public hearings.

I see your point here, hobbes, but remember that with Iran-Contra, we did end up getting most of the truth, despite all the "I don't recall" answers - the string of indictments and convictions bears that out. What bothers me the most about this is not so much the private part - it's the no oath taking and no recording. I think at the very least, there should be transcripts made, which can eventually be read by the people. One of the most important aspects of responsible and republican government, at least in my view, is transparency - something this administration has been notoriously bad about.

Will the American public ever know what the Bush administration did or didn’t know or did or didn’t do?

Likely not. Oh, some may know - these things do find their way to light, usually - but by the time they do, most people don't care anymore. Most people still don't know the truth about everything that went on with the Iran-Contra affair, and that was two decades ago! Heck, most people probably aren't aware of the grotesque US bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war. It's not that the truth isn't out there. It's just that people tend to be apathetic - especially after the fact, after the news stories have died down.

Do you feel the American public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney’s testimony?

Absolutely. "...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Wise words.

Question in response to you, Hobbes: Why not under oath?

Not sure--I personally don't have a problem with that. I think this has more to do with precedent than anything else--although I do see where this would also hinder open discussion, although not to nearly the same degree.



Yes, but did we get the truth because of the public testimony, or in spite of it? Personally, I think it would have been much more productive in private (again, making the rather large assumption that the goal was to get at the truth, with no political implications).

Blah Blah Blah! Politics Politics Politics! FORMER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON (WHO HAD 8 YEARS TO DEAL WITH AL QUEDA) GAVE TESTIMONY......IN PRIVATE! AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC AND CAMERAS AND THE MEDIA! WITH HIS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR SANDY BERGER! IN PRIVATE! AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC AND CAMERAS AND THE MEDIA! AS DID FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE! IN PRIVATE! AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC AND CAMERAS AND THE MEDIA! AND THE ONLY MEMBER (OUT OF TEN) OF THE 911 COMMISIONERS THAT CREATED/EXECUTED POLICY RELATED TO THE 911 ATTACKS IS NONE OTHER THAN DEMOCRAT JAIME GORELICK (ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER BILL CLINTON). OH YEAH! THIS IS AN HONEST FAIR LOOK AT THE SITUATION!

Will the American public ever know what the Bush administration did or didn’t know or did or didn’t do?

Do you feel the American public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney’s testimony?

I don't know if public access to Bush/Cheney's Q&A session with the commission would alter the opinion of people who have been following the war and the White House and have made up their minds. If we ever find out what they said to the commission I wonder how much could the information possibly effect our opinion. Bush lovers and haters are settled in for the long night to election day.

Under oath or not, with or without cameras, I expect them to defend their decisions and actions (or lack thereof).

First Bush opposed the commission. Then he refused to speak with the commission. Then he said he could spare an hour. Finally when Scott McClellan told the press "nobody's watching the clock" I assumed it would be under oath. Maybe not. Well it could be filmed. Okay, not that either. Surely it would be taped? I guess I was being naive. :-)

In any case I think Bush and Cheney appeared together so they wouldn't contradict each other. A pragmatic move.

Not likely. We will be given a bunch of insider info that doesn't have to be true. After all, there's no oath to tell the truth and therefore no obligation. As a result, I and others are free to speculate as to the truth.



Oh, I feel that I have the right to know. After all, these two are supposed to be working for us. I'd expect my employees to let me know, or at least give me their best spin on the subject.

However, others feel that I don't have this right. These people seem to be making the rules, and so there you go.

When things are done in secret, I tend to think the worse: Bush and Cheney schemed up something and it backfired. Or they wanted something to happen. It was just pretty horrible, that's all, more horrible than anyone could have imagined.

Or I take that back. Some did imagine it and were not listened to.

Anyway, the point of the above tangent is that when things are done in secret, the imagination can run wild.

You're making this uneccessarily partisan, argonaut. Did you think somehow that those of us calling for open (or at the very least transcribed) sessions would turn about and defend Clinton's private session? If the focus is on Bush and Cheney, well, that's because of two things: that's what the debate question is about; and Bush is the sitting president. I think transparency is one of the most important aspects of a free society, and I could care less if the politicians I attack over it are Democrats or Republicans.

Well, it must have been a fawning, slobbering lovefest at the Oval Office yesterday:


This from the man who opposed the very formation of the committee, repeatedly refused to testify before it, and when he finally did relent, set it up on his turf, his terms, with Unka Dick, without witnesses, without recordings....why do I feel it was a 3-hour PR speech for BushCo, with no tough questions answered, and any "questions" that were asked were big, lobbing softballs?

Everything was set up just so for Bush and Cheney...the American public and specifically, the families of the 9/11 victims are the ones who got screwed.

As for Argonaut's rant - Clinton and Gore's testimonies were R - E - C - O - R - D - E - D. There is a documented record of what they said. BushCo can make anything they like out of what was said, because who the heck is gonna refute it??

I may be wrong(I am sure I will be corrected if I am)but isn't this the 1ST time a president and vice-president have answered questions together.

If so, what is the reason for this. Is it to keep their stories together and no contradictions? Remember Cheney and Bush were on different pages about the wmds in Iraq. Cheney kept saying there were wmds and we would find them. Meanwhile Bush had toned down his remarks about finding wmds in Iraq.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt Cheney was there with Bush to make sure their comments didn't conflict. In fact I have heard some rumors that Cheney is a very good ventriloquist.